[USML Announce] BA 100 Top Prospects

springkerb at aol.com springkerb at aol.com
Tue Feb 21 22:47:20 EST 2012


That's why I floated the idea that Rich's score would be infinite.  If you have no guys who are rated, then you score really high in this golf-like world where a lower score is a good thing.

But, more importantly, who cares whether the theory is valid.  The main object is to talk trash, and it's always good to go low if you can.  The most obvious thing that I see here is that this works pretty much the opposite of penis size.  Small = good; big = bad.  So, I'm thinking one could say something like, "Hey WInick, I'm glad you finally found a place where less is more."  That's not any good, of course.  But you get the idea.  Fire away.

As for me, I'm comfortable with being one of the big guys in the league, and I always have been.

Mark

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Adams <dadams17 at gmail.com>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 9:35 pm
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] BA 100 Top Prospects


Perhaps this is my youthful ignorance speaking, but I'm confused by some of the math supporting these boasts.  By this system, if Owner A has a player on the list who is rated at #50, and Owner B has 2 players rated 25 and 26 (giving them a score of 51), then technically Owner A has the more braggadocious score, despite the fact Owner B has more players in the Top 100 both of who are rated higher than Owner A's only player on the list.
 
I know it's just bragging rights, I'm just stirring up discussion and was curious if your boasting went so far as to create a formula to account for the number of players on the list, not just the sum of their ranks.


On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:28 PM, <springkerb at aol.com> wrote:

Or maybe Rich's score is infinity. 







-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Jansen <bljansen at gmail.com>
To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>



Sent: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: [USML Announce] BA 100 Top Prospects


Rich, please: the rules require that you have 3 prospects in the BA 100 to participate.
I am sorry if you are ineligible. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, except Winick's.
 --Brad


 
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Richard Robbins <rerobbins at itinker.net> wrote:

I suspect I have none of the guys.  So my number is zero.  Do I win?


On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:51 PM, <rickgam at comcast.net> wrote:





Greetings;
    Ahem ...... the H.D.s have 7 of these guys.  Any offers since I'm only planning on keeping
3 of them?
   Rick  





From: "Brad Jansen" <bljansen at gmail.com>
To: "USML Announcements" <announce at usml.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:09:04 AM
Subject: [USML Announce] BA 100 Top Prospects

Jeffrey, the list is out. Please restrict your gloating to five paragraphs or less. 
_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce



_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce





_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce





_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce




_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce





-- 
Dennis F. Adams III
Candidate, Juris Doctor 2013
Northwestern University School of Law

 
_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce at usml.net
http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://usml.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20120221/f9d90409/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Announce mailing list